Lyman Good’s lawsuit against the manufacturers and distributors of a supplement he claimed caused him to fail a USADA drug test has been dismissed by a New York District Court Judge. The court dismissed the lawsuit which claimed that a dietary supplement was tainted with a banned substance.
Memo and Opinion by MMA Payout on Scribd
At the heart of the dismissal was Good’s inability to provide admissible evidence in support of his claim – that a supplement, Anavite, he ingested was tainted with a banned substance. Notably, the court found a lab report which tested Anavite for a tainted supplement was inadmissible for purposes of trial. While Good claimed that they were admissible under a “business records exception,” the trial court noted that it had to have someone that would “lay the necessary foundation” for its admissibility. The technical nature of this evidentiary process is to have the person that either made the document or the records keeper with knowledge that the document was made in the usual course of business testify about this fact regarding the document. This would go to the authenticity of the document for purpose of admission. Good did not identify a witness to do this. Rather, it relied on the business records exception which does not require a witness to testify.
The question as to why Good did not subpoena the records custodian and/or person with most knowledge about the document remains a strategic question. Good identified a lawyer at USADA as a witness, but the Court in its opinion stated that this was “irrelevant.” Good’s attorney should have seen this coming as it discussed this at a previous hearing.
Court asks Good's attorney how are they going to prove Anavite was defective…Good's attorney points to USADA. Court asks how that's relevant. #UFC #sportslaw https://t.co/KT6asNJWRM pic.twitter.com/QZotHkJXUE
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) January 7, 2020
Lastly, the Court notes that instead of a witness to testify to the report, it could have supplied a certification per the court rules. Yet, it did not do so.
Another factor that went against Good was the fact that he did not disclose Anavite on the list of supplements he was taking to USADA (see above from the opinion). The omission seems to reflect that he did not recall taking Anavite and/or left it off.
Payout Perspective:
It’s clear from the outset that the key piece of evidence was the bottle of Anavite which Good claimed was tainted. It was lost which is one setback for him. Another is not having a clear theory of the case. In a products liability case (of which this is one) where a product is claimed to be defective and the consumer blames a manufacturer, supplier or distributor, there must be a certain amount of evidence in the plaintiff’s favor. There are usually several theories of the case based on a breach of warranty, manufacturers’ defect or a design defect. From a hearing earlier this year, it was clear that either Good’s attorney was not clear which case was Good’s. If the Court did not know the intent of the claim, it is a bad sign about your case. The inability to retain the Anavite bottle that was tested to show it contained banned substance was the big problem and not calling a witness that could testify on his behalf concerning the lab report compounded the issue.
We do not know if the lab that tested the bottle of Anavite and found it to be tainted did not want to participate to testify or if Good just did not have the money to pay a witness to testify. There is also the issue of losing the bottle in question which caused the Court to issue a ruling precluding the use of the evidence by Good and his attorneys.
Good still could appeal the ruling. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply